Short answer: Yes. But then you knew that. :-) In this situation I would expect you'd get 900Mb+ and probably very close to the full Gb. There is something like 3% overhead in TCP/IP and Ethernet Framing so the limit would be approximately 970Mb/s.

You are using an aggregated line on the Target system so I would focus there first. First question is what is the physical hardware being aggregated? If it's ports in the 181C remember those aren't supported for aggregation unless you dedicate the entire port to an LPAR. Something in the cover letter about "Not being sure the packets get to the correct LPAR..." and that seemed bad for throughput.

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

On 1/10/2013 8:44 AM, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Shouldn't I be getting a lot better throughput?

Help me out with my math. I've got an Ethernet line on 1 lpar talking to
an Ethernet line on another lpar. They both say:
Current line speed . . . . . . . . : 1G
Current duplex . . . . . . . . . . : *FULL

Target system:
Resource Type
CMB03 268C
LIN04 6B26
Source system:
CMB30 181C
LIN06 181C
CMN242 181C

They are both on our same 10.17.6 subnet.

I FTP'd a sizeable file and got these results:

Size, in bytes, of save file: 13,458,505,728
Seconds to perform transmission: 2,222
Bytes/sec: 6,056,933.271
bits/byte: 8
bits/second: 48,455,466.167
Gb/bits: 0.000000001
Gb/sec: 0.048455466

iNav's Management central says lan utilization was minimal.
iNav's says percent busy of disk was minimal. (currently 2-7%)
Source system has 64 disk arms.
Target system is a guest on the source. It has 6 equal "arms".

Shouldn't I be getting a lot better throughput? After all, 0.05 is not

I am not interested in any virtual ethernet backplane type solution due to
some H/A concerns.

Rob Berendt

This thread ...


Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page